Farmers’ elk pleas ignored

BY BLAKE HURST

Sunday

Apr 24, 2011 at 12:01 AMApr 24, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Although many farmers and ranchers are against it, and although the Missouri Farm Bureau testified on behalf of farmers and ranchers opposing it, elk will soon return to Missouri. Despite our objections, the Missouri Conservation Commission gave the Missouri Department of Conservation the go-ahead.

Missouri farmers and ranchers are not anti-elk, per se, but realize the large animals require a large forage area and no amount of signs will prevent them from entering farmland and damaging fences, crops and pasture.

Additionally, elk can infect domesticated livestock with diseases such as brucellosis.

We are also concerned with the possibility of vehicle/elk accidents on our roads and highways. Deer cause millions of dollars of damage to cars each year. Elk are much bigger than deer. Any collisions between elk and vehicles promise to cause more property damage and have a much higher chance of passenger injury.

All this aside, elk will soon be released, and I recently had the opportunity to present comments before the Missouri Conservation Commission. I did not dwell on the reasons why elk should not be reintroduced since that is a done deal. Instead, I focused on the responsibility the Missouri Department of Conservation has to compensate farmers and ranchers who suffer damages when elk cross boundaries and move onto private property.

I shared comments I received on this issue with the commission. One person believes the department should fence Peck Ranch. A North Dakota farmer called who shares his land with 500 elk. Until steps were taken to control the size of the herd, he was losing 60 acres of crops a year to elk damage, a personal loss of nearly $20,000 annually.

Most other states with elk herds provide compensation for damages caused by elk. If other state conservation departments can compensate, there is certainly no reason the Missouri Department of Conservation cannot. I have urged the commission to convene a group including farmers and other landowners to develop a compensation program.

To my knowledge, no other state has the conservation resources Missouri has, with nearly $100 million in annual revenue generated by a perpetual, dedicated sales tax. Also, Missouri adds millions of dollars in permit fee revenues, federal funding through reimbursements and grants, and private funding though various organizations.

The elk experiment will begin soon. The bottom line is this: If elk really are not a threat to private property, as the Missouri Department of Conservation claims, then a compensation program will cost the Missouri Department of Conservation nothing. The commission made the decision to reintroduce elk and should now put its money where its mouth is.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.